I’d really like to hear a justification of what makes these people “experts.” At one point, I could have bought Wakefield, but given his resistence to critical reevaluation, he’s lost credibility. Is he suggesting all those homeopathy loons are experts in vaccine science? That Fisher dingbat?

Being visible propagandists does not make them experts. Expertise is obtained through study.

Continuing on my expertise theme, here, for example, are some of the members of the CDC’s Advisery Committee on Immunization Practices (you know, the ones who set up vaccine schedules and all that). Compare these to the “experts” who are presenting at the NVIC. I’ll leave it up to the reader to do the PubMed searches…

@ Pablo: “I’d really like to hear a justification of what makes these people ‘experts.’ ”

The qualifications for being an “expert” are: (1) being from out of town; (2) wearing a suit or other clothing that typifies being a “professional” of the relevant profession (e.g., wearing a stethoscope and wearing scrubs); (3) carrying a briefcase, Blackberry or similar symbol of authority; & (4) getting someone to pay you for giving a speech that includes frequent use of words that at least half of the audience does not understand.